Myself it really depends on what Germany does, though my standard moves are, Dest from SZ35 to SZ59, Sub from SZ40 to SZ45, The Subs a 50/50, some people like to take the carrier to the tran as well but, I prefer the Dest Alone. If Africa is going good, Namely if I can retake EGY, then the tran in SZ40 takes two inf from AUS and invades New Guinea (Something nice to try) If I cannot retake EGY I like to use the Tran to pick up 2 INF from AUS and then move to SZ30, then on UK2 drop them anywhere along the Africa coast (Even Persia if it needs them). If Germany takes EGY and you “can” retake it, then do it bringing 2 inf from IND, 1 INF from TRJ and the Fighter from SZ35 (You can also bring your Bomber but I usually don’t). Otherwise I like to stack 2 inf in TRJ and the 3 Indian Inf and A-A gun to Persia. The AC stays with the Tran wherever it decides to go. If Germany is stupid and doesn’t take EGY, then smile :lol: happily and move the INF from TRJ into it, stack 4 + A-A gun in Persia, move the FIG to EGY and move the Tran and AC to SZ33 (Out of reach of the IJN).
The SAF INF always moves up, regardless of what you do.
Making Bombers viable
-
Tactical Bombing would be a replacement tech for Heavy Bombers.
And yes, AA could always fire at those bombers (same as always), it just broadens the number of potential targets and increases the potential damage. This is offered as a way of making an SBR campaign more viable, though still costly and risky, without having to have Heavy Bombers which dramatically alter the naval situation.
HB’s were not really used at sea in WWII, they were almost exclusively engaged only in SBR and TBR campaigns. So by adding the ability to do SBR’s of ports and bridges in Northern France, to bomb oil fields in the Middle East, to bomb ports in the Pacific Islands, to bomb rail and roads in central Europe… It simply makes the use of bombers closer to the way they were actually used.
I will say that I WOULD combine Tactical Bombers with the “per game turn” instead of “per national turn” limit for SBR damage that Jen mentioned previously. Heck with that limitation, Tactical Bombers might not even be a tech option, just an alternate rule for SBR’s…
-
@ncscswitch:
HB’s were not really used at sea in WWII, they were almost exclusively engaged only in SBR and TBR campaigns. So by adding the ability to do SBR’s of ports and bridges in Northern France, to bomb oil fields in the Middle East, to bomb ports in the Pacific Islands, to bomb rail and roads in central Europe… It simply makes the use of bombers closer to the way they were actually used.
In terms of realism, yeah its just about right o remove HB (or even normal bomber) in naval combat.
In terms of gameplay, it makes players balance between navy and army. (another thing in the carrier fighters)
-
You would still have the BOM available for naval combat, that would remain unchanged. You just get rid of the 600 pound gorilla of how to make Heavy Bombers not unbalance the naval campaigns while still allowing the Allies to use a CBO offensive against Germany.